DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORD

S

2 NAVY ANNE

X

WASHINGTON DC

 

2Oi70-5100

SMC
Docket No: 02721-01
28 June 2001

This is in reference to your application for correction of your naval record pursuant to the
provisions of title 10 of the United States Code, section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive
session, considered your application on 28 June 2001. Your allegations of error and injustice
were reviewed in accordance with administrative regulations and procedures applicable to the
proceedings of this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your
application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and
applicable statutes, regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the report of
the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board 
3 April 2001, a copy of which is attached, and your letter dated 10 May 2001 with
enclosures.

(PERB), dated

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the
evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

The Board did not find the contested fitness report to be internally inconsistent. They found
the incident cited adequately explained the one adverse mark, assigned in  “judgment.” They
likewise did not find the reviewing officer contradicted himself: while he did indicate
concurrence with the marks the reporting senior assigned you in items 15a and b, concerning
“general value to the service,” he did not say he agreed with the reporting senior’s
conclusion that you were qualified for promotion. The Board found the incident cited,
described by your service record page 11 counseling entry, the reporting senior and the third
sighting officer as “minor,” was nevertheless important enough to warrant mention in the
contested fitness report.
assigned and, therefore, had to be mentioned. The Board considered your compliance with
regulations to be a matter relevant to your performance. They did not feel the mark in
judgment was unduly harsh. They found the third sighting officer adequately adjudicated the

In this regard, they noted it was the basis for the adverse mark

matters you raised in your responses to the reporting senior and reviewing officer:
specifically, he clarified that you had only one unfavorable incident, that your conduct was
not “criminal” and that the pyrotechnics you possessed were of civilian manufacture. The
Board was unable to find the pyrotechnics you possessed were not the kind whose possession
on the reservation was prohibited by Air Station Order 
not find it objectionable that the reporting senior expressed his opinion that the incident was
probably of a  “one-time” nature, nor did they object to the reviewing officer ’s statement to
the effect there is no way to know whether it was a one-time incident. The tone of the
reviewing officer ’s comments did not convince the Board that his assessment was personal
rather than professional. Finally, they were unable to find the contested fitness report was
t influenced by those whom the third sighting officer mentions as having favored stronger
action against you.

5510.15B,  paragraph 10. They did

In view of the above, your application has been denied. The names and votes of the
members of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such that favorable action cannot be
taken. You are entitled to have the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new
and material evidence or other matter not previously considered by the Board. In this
regard, it is important to keep in mind that a presumption of regularity attaches to all official
records. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the
burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or
injustice.

Sincerely,

W. DEAN PFEIFFER
Executive Director

Enclosure

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAW
HEADQUARTERS UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS

3280  RUSSELL ROA

D

QUANTICO, VIRGINIA

  22 134-5 103

IN REPLY REFER TO:
1610
MMER/PERB
=3 APR  

2OCI

MEMORANDUM FOR THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF

NAVAL RECORDS

Subj :

Ref:

Encl

MARINE  CORPS PE
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICA
GUNNERY 

RF ORMANCE 

SERGEAN

EVALUATION 

R EVIEW 

’

BOARD  

(PERB)
OF
MC

(a)  
(b)  

GySgt
MC0  

P1610.7D  

DD Form 149 of 15  

w/Ch  l-4

Ott  00

(1)  Copy of Completed Report 971101 to 980430

 

(TR)

16lO.llC,  the Performance Evaluation Review Board,

met on 11 January 2001 to consider
petition contained in reference (a).

Per 

MC0  

1.
with three memb
Gunnery 
Sergean
Removal of the
(TR)  was requested.
directive governing submission of the report.

Reference 

fitness report for the period 971101 to 980430

(b) is the performance evaluation

The petitioner argues that the Reviewing Officer's comments

2.
are adverse, inaccurate, and unfounded.
as derogatory accusations that unfairly detract and question his
integrity, loyalty,
his appeal,
incident that served as the genesis for the adversity and
provides several items of documentary material.

the petitioner provides his perspective into the

and overall performance.

He cites those comments

In furtherance of

3 .

In its proceedings,

the PERB concluded that:

a.

As the petitioner contends, the Reviewing Officer's

They also'add new and additional

which was not previously identified by the

comments are adverse.
unfavorable matter,
Reporting Senior.
afforded an opportunity to acknowledge and respond to those
comments.
time the PERB first considered reference (a), and especially in
view of the serious nature of the adversity, the Board found
that offering

the petitioner. a chance to now respond to Major

the petitioner should have-been

Owing to the relative  

recency  of the report at the

As such,

comments would be an acceptable remedy.
been completed,
the Third Sighting Officer.

as

to include sighting and comment by

All referral

C
n’

Subj:

CORPS  PERFO RMANCE 

r4zmm  
ADVISORY OPINION ON BCNR APPLICATION IN THE CASE OF
GUNNERY SERGEANT

EVALUATION REVIEW

 

USMC

BOARD  

(PERB)

b.

In reviewing the entire package, and not withstanding

the petitioner's insight into the events and circumstances
during the reporting period,.
to show that he was not properly, fairly, or accurately
evaluated.
Third Sighting Officer's complete adjudication and resolution of
all factual differences,

either perceived or real.

the Board invites attention to the

the Board finds absolutely nothing

In this regard,

.4. The Board's opinion,
vote,
enclosure,
official military record.

is that the contested fitness report, as reflected in the

should remain a part of Gunnery Sergeant

based on deliberation and secret ballot

5.

The case is forwarded for final action.

Chairperson, Performance
Evaluation Review Board
Personnel Management Division
Manpower and Reserve Affairs
Department
By direction of the Commandant
of the Marine Corps

2